Considering he wants the mere mention of his name or trial made illegal, one can hardly blame the mail for picking a fight...

Mr Mosley – via a family trust – is almost single-handedly bankrolling Impress, the controversial state-approved regulator of the Press that is shunned by every national newspaper. This has led to questions about Impress's independence.

Highway1

28th Feb 2018, 00:14

It baffles me that in a supposedly democratic country they allow some privacy obsessed billionaire with a fetish for far right politics and nazi sex parties to fund the press regulator.

If you put that in Private Eye a few years ago everyone would have laughed.

sitigeltfel

28th Feb 2018, 03:20

Will Corbyn's Labour Party return the £540,000 it received in donations from Mosley?

B Fraser

28th Feb 2018, 06:36

Did he tell them he had a whip round ?

Andy_S

28th Feb 2018, 07:12

It baffles me that in a supposedly democratic country they allow some privacy obsessed billionaire with a fetish for far right politics and nazi sex parties to fund the press regulator.

He was a member of the Labour Party.........

UniFoxOs

28th Feb 2018, 07:44

Looks like the Dail Mail is going after Max Mosely in a big way...

About time somebody did.

thegypsy

28th Feb 2018, 08:04

Another rich bully ready to litigate at every opportunity. All it does is show one and all what a thoroughly unpleasant character he is.

G-CPTN

28th Feb 2018, 08:21

A barrister I believe . . .

sitigeltfel

28th Feb 2018, 10:36

It baffles me that in a supposedly democratic country they allow some privacy obsessed billionaire with a fetish for far right politics and nazi sex parties to fund the press regulator.

Not forgetting that married Left wing Labour washing machine salesman with a penchant for Romanian rent boys and nose powder.

Sallyann1234

28th Feb 2018, 10:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway1 https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/605963-max-moseley-press.html#post10067563)
It baffles me that in a supposedly democratic country they allow some privacy obsessed billionaire with a fetish for far right politics and nazi sex parties to fund the press regulator.

He was a member of the Labour Party.........Perhaps National Socialist might describe him then. :E

Considering he wants the mere mention of his name or trial made illegal, one can hardly blame the mail for picking a fight...

On the surface, this would appear to the case.

However, if you read the subliminal text, this is another attempt to discredit Labour ( Corbyn being an alleged Soviet spy being the first salvo in this respect ) and for the Mail, it's remarkably detailed. Not forgetting the Mail has some expertise when it comes to printing disinformation intended to sow the seeds of outrage to appease its faithful readership.

Expect a few more articles in a similar vein as the current Gov't descends even further into dysfunctional policy implementation at both a national and international level.

Whilst nobody would claim he's a paragon, he gets a few mentions in "Private Eye" at times, his private life is precisely that.....private.

If you followed the case, it subsequently traspired he was set up by some of those involved and a now, thankfully, defunct rag printed the events "in the public interest " when it was anything but.

What happened was by mutual consent and informed consent, there was no coercion or intimidation for example involved.

How many of those so happily condemning him on here would care to see their own little predilections displayed across the media? ......answers on a signed affidavit to the Sun who will duly do the rest for you.

Trossie

28th Feb 2018, 16:00

... this is another attempt to discredit Labour ...Don't need to try too hard, they do it themselves!

Highway1

28th Feb 2018, 16:00

Sorry, dont see what this has to do with Corbyn. Moseley is using his own money to airbrush his past and has somehow (god knows how) managed to become the Nations press regulator. I suspect that if he was a supporter of JRM you would be screaming form the rooftops about it.

Last nights car crash interview on CH4 shows how unsuitable he is to be allowed anywhere near regulation of a free press.

Krystal n chips

28th Feb 2018, 16:17

Sorry, dont see what this has to do with Corbyn. Moseley is using his own money to airbrush his past and has somehow (god knows how) managed to become the Nations press regulator. I suspect that if he was a supporter of JRM you would be screaming form the rooftops about it.

Last nights car crash interview on CH4 shows how unsuitable he is to be allowed anywhere near regulation of a free press.

If you had actually read what I wrote, it has nothing to do with Corbyn, The allegations made against him provided suitably sensationalist and lurid headlines, to attract attention, and, for a while, they had the desired effect.

The content has much more to do with discrediting Labour, and some in the Labour party, given the current perilous state of the Gov't.

Max Mosley has simply provided a convenient opportunity to carry on the Mails campaign in an attempt to help ensure the current Gov't isn't voted out in the not too distant future.

Max Mosley has simply provided a convenient opportunity to carry on the Mails campaign in an attempt to help ensure the current Gov't isn't voted out in the not too distant future.

You'll be calling it 'fake news' next ;)

Highway1

28th Feb 2018, 16:57

KnC - not everything is a conspiracy against Labour, sometimes things are just plain wrong. And if anyone could make a decent argument in favour of a Billionaire with a long history of paranoia and very dodgy views regulating the Press in the UK I would love to hear it.

Perhaps you can put Labour aside for 2 seconds and try to construct an argument?

Krystal n chips

28th Feb 2018, 17:19

KnC - not everything is a conspiracy against Labour, sometimes things are just plain wrong. And if anyone could make a decent argument in favour of a Billionaire with a long history of paranoia and very dodgy views regulating the Press in the UK I would love to hear it.

Perhaps you can put Labour aside for 2 seconds and try to construct an argument?

I've already constructed the argument thank you, if you have read the full content of my post that is, rather than a selective quote.

So it's pure coincidence then, that, after the risible smear campaign against Corbyn, within a matter of days, this latest revelation appears in the Mail.

This time, with regard to his alleged past, there may be some tangible evidence in support of the allegations. We will have to wait and see, but, the alacrity with which the Labour party distanced itself from him, suggests this may be the case.

Shame the Tory party isn't equally so inclined towards certain large donors now isn't it. And then there's UKIP, again, a party with some "interesting" donations and, seemingly, the DUP also get a mention at times.

His views on Press regulation are well documented, as any regular reader of "Private Eye " would confirm, which is ironic as far as the Mail is concerned, but, I would suggest you start to read beyond the headlines and assimilate what is happening, politically, in the UK and why the Mail should now embark on publishing such articles as a result.

Highway1

28th Feb 2018, 17:37

Put your paranoia away - this has nothing to do with the Labour Party or Jeremy Corbyn

I've never said it was to do directly with Corbyn, but it does, indirectly, have to do with Labour. As you may be aware, the two are inextricably linked.

If the Mail were so concerned about publishing details of his past there would have been no reason to include the donations to the Labour party because there is no direct relevance to the emerging story.

As this article clarifies, the issue is about Press regulation it seems and when the rag devotes eleven pages, as reported, then clearly they have decided their own interpretation of press freedom may come under closer scrutiny.

To be fair here, he's never really enamoured himself to the press with his views on regulation but, until now, no outlet has openly attacked him in this manner.

Today's Mail, now complimented by another bulwark of press freedom and dubious factual content, the Sun, duly continues to enthral the readership with the revelations.

As I've said, with its political leanings over the years, not forgetting the abhorrent and infamous "Enemies of the people !" headline directed at three members of the judiciary ( the rag thoughtfully forgot to mention the independence of the judiciary in this case ) the irony of the Mail's public spirited campaign is staggering to witness.

ShotOne

1st Mar 2018, 07:07

You have really lost it Krystal. In a world where a minister has to resign because he put his hand on someone’s knee (maybe) a decade ago, you’re telling us a sex orgy plus other alleged nastiness is only being reported because he’s a Labour supporter and donor ?

Krystal n chips

1st Mar 2018, 07:41

You have really lost it Krystal. In a world where a minister has to resign because he put his hand on someone’s knee (maybe) a decade ago, you’re telling us a sex orgy plus other alleged nastiness is only being reported because he’s a Labour supporter and donor ?

On the contrary, it's not me who has lost it.

Obviously, said former Minister, being a Tory, was a jolly decent chap who was merely showing his refined social skills along with browsing ( this is the bit that's escaped your notice it seems ) presumably to alleviate the pressures of being an MP, websites of a certain nature thereafter being "economical with the truth " regarding such.

Mosely however, was participating in a private activity, in a private and consensual manner. In this respect, he is as much entitled to his privacy as we all are. The N.o.W clearly didn't understand this principle, not that the rag ever had any principles anyway, and duly printed the story.

Feel free to explain why you consider doing so was in the public interest.

Thereafter, for obvious reasons, he will be forever linked to this event and obviously the Mail and the Sun, the latter having a more than passing interest due to the findings of the court case, will invariably include this if it can be used against him. The content of the case is more likely to attract readers attention after all.

Thus for the Mail this is the equivalent of a supermarket "BOGOF" offer...not only can they attack Mosely, but, due to his donations to Labour, they can also use his connection to continue their attacks on Labour in support of the current Gov't.

ShotOne

1st Mar 2018, 09:24

I wasn’t even aware he was a Labour supporter until your rant. The uncomfortable fact remains he is campaigning to build momentum for a statutory body to restrict press freedom. Now it turns out he may have personal reasons for such restrictions. And in your world the press shouldn’t be allowed to report that?

KelvinD

1st Mar 2018, 09:32

Unbelievable! To think there is a sentient being out there that still believes St. Damien was fired for no reason! For the umpteenth time; he was fired for being a low life, lying toe rag. In his efforts to defend himself, he threw allegations around in an attempt to get the spotlight pointed elsewhere. He obviously didn't care if others were hurt by his mantra of "lie, point a finger, lie some more". One wonders if he went to the same school as Andrew Mitchell!
As for Mosely, he may be a public figure but that is not the same as being a figure in public office. The moral standards one can expect from behind the curtains of No 3 Acacia Ave are not the same as those that are rightly expected from a holder of public office.
With regard to press regulation; what exactly was the point of the Levenson Gravy Train? A lot of lawyers were paid huge amounts of money; the learned judge came up with some sensible ideas and they seem to have just been left on the table. I must admit I lost the trail somewhere along the line but isn't there a "Levenson Part 2" lurking somewhere?

ORAC

1st Mar 2018, 09:40

what exactly was the point of the Levenson Gravy Train? A lot of lawyers were paid huge amounts of money I thought that, as far as the legal professional are concerned, that was the point...

Krystal n chips

1st Mar 2018, 10:12

I wasn’t even aware he was a Labour supporter until your rant. The uncomfortable fact remains he is campaigning to build momentum for a statutory body to restrict press freedom. Now it turns out he may have personal reasons for such restrictions. And in your world the press shouldn’t be allowed to report that?

That's a rather insightful confession as to your lack of knowledge in some respects.

Were you actually aware of the court case in question I wonder.

In my world, diametrically the opposite to yours it seems, the press should have all the freedom they need, and there are already sufficient legislative acts available to control their publishing ( I politely suggest you read "Private Eye" here for a serious assessment of the current freedoms of the press ) but that does not include lurid exposes of people's private lives simply to stimulate the foetid imaginations of their readers.

Just to add to the fun, please read this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43240230

I take it you are still mulling over how such stories are "in the public interest" hence the delay in responding the question ?

I posed the question earlier. If you feel this is acceptable, feel free to contact the Sun with all the details of your privacy and if any should be suitably salacious, the rag will duly oblige.

This is not a personal attack by the way, or even a suggestion you may or may not have engaged in activities that could be construed in some circles as immoral ( before you misconstrue the comment) but for the vast majority of the population, providing these activities are within the law and are by informed consent from all parties, it's no concern to anybody else.

Highway1

1st Mar 2018, 12:45

I've never said it was to do directly with Corbyn, but it does, indirectly, have to do with Labour. As you may be aware, the two are inextricably linked.

Well the only thing it has to do with Labour is the hilarious sideshow where Tom Watson keeps making an arse of himself by trying to justify taking money from this guy. Watson says he wont return the money because Moseley is a changed man and no longer holds the views he did - at exactly the same time as Seamus Milne has said that Labour wont take any money in the future from this odious little man due to his views...

Highway1

1st Mar 2018, 12:47

As for Mosely, he may be a public figure but that is not the same as being a figure in public office. The moral standards one can expect from behind the curtains of No 3 Acacia Ave are not the same as those that are rightly expected from a holder of public office.

Kelvin, do you think the rich should be allowed to control statutory bodies that they can then use for their own personal benefit?.

FFS even the Guardian are against this guy being involved in deciding on Press freedoms.

chuks

1st Mar 2018, 13:48

What is not in the public interest about nailing someone for promoting such intolerance as found in that pamphlet?

If Mosley wrote and/or circulated that pamphlet with his name on it let him be called out for that. From what we have been shown here it looks as if he got away with some sort of "I did not do that and you can't prove it," based merely on nobody having been able to find the pamphlet when they needed it to prove the original accusation.

The thing is that people being seen as able to get away with promulgating intolerance encourages others to do the same. There's your public interest in making trouble for Mr. Mosley about various Nazi-themed things he has got up to; it shows what sort of mindset he may have had if and when he put out that pamphlet.

Here Mosley is now, condemning the pamphlet while also claiming, very improbably, that it might be fake, nothing to do with him despite bearing his name. What he was shown was a mere photocopy; he needs to see the original. After that he needs to have his lawyers study this matter further. For about as long as it takes for the fuss to die down, perhaps?

This is going to be like Sarah Huckabee Sanders' favorite evasion of "I don't know about that. Let me get back to you later on that," when "later" never comes.

sitigeltfel

1st Mar 2018, 13:49

Well the only thing it has to do with Labour is the hilarious sideshow where Tom Watson keeps making an arse of himself by trying to justify taking money from this guy. Watson says he wont return the money because Moseley is a changed man and no longer holds the views he did - at exactly the same time as Seamus Milne has said that Labour wont take any money in the future from this odious little man due to his views...

Ken Livingstone has been indefinitely suspended by Labour for his Anti-Semitic behaviour. I bet if he had £500,000 to put in Corbyn's back pocket, the party would find some excuse to re-admit him.

KelvinD

1st Mar 2018, 16:31

Highway 1: Kelvin, do you think the rich should be allowed to control statutory bodies that they can then use for their own personal benefit?
Why on earth was such a question directed at me? I have never so much as hinted at such and never would. I think you may have read more into my post than I ever wrote.
Personally, I have no time for Mosley or his ilk. Having had a look at what made this man news, I discovered that he was as much Max Mitford as Mosley. Then I find that before becoming a Labour Party donor, he worked for the Conservative Party, hoping at some point to gain selection by them but he eventually dumped them, having become disillusioned by the calibre of senior party officials.
And at the end of all that, I have to say I still don't give a rat's arse about what the bloke gets up to!
And, does the government read these threads or was it just coincidence that within a very short time of my questioning whither Levenson Part 2, the government have sent it off to join a growing inventory of stuff stored in the "long grass".